(2024-04-17 20:25)DustWolf Wrote:  

(2024-04-17 19:59)wolfdogmisty Wrote:  @DustWolf taken from web: "Queerplatonic relationships (QPR) and queerplatonic partnerships (QPP) are committed intimate relationships which are not romantic in nature. They may differ from usual close friendships by having more explicit commitment, validation, status, structure, and norms, similar to a conventional romantic relationship."

This tells me absolutely nothing.

I stand by my original question.

LP,
Dusty

apologies, i thought you were just looking for info on QPRs.

i can't know for certain what Shipaxe was trying to ask, but i'm assuming that, considering the nature of QPRs, they wanted to know if talk of queerplatonic partners would also be prohibited for members under 16.

for example, would someone under 16 be allowed to discuss their queerplatonic partners in their journal, or be allowed to form QPRs with other members of TG, seeing as QPRs can often appear romantic despite their lack of romance.

hope that's a little more helpful, i'm trying :sob: /lh

It's not exactly very surprising to me that this rule was made. A lot of members have created drama by being in romantic relationships, or have caused problems by excessively talking about/to their partner. While this rule will barely affect me, I do appreciate that it was made, since something definitely needed to happen to help prevent Further issues.
Thank you, TG staff members.

(2024-04-17 19:59)wolfdogmisty Wrote:  @DustWolf taken from web: "Queerplatonic relationships (QPR) and queerplatonic partnerships (QPP) are committed intimate relationships which are not romantic in nature. They may differ from usual close friendships by having more explicit commitment, validation, status, structure, and norms, similar to a conventional romantic relationship."

This tells me absolutely nothing.

I stand by my original question.

LP,
Dusty

@DustWolf taken from web: "Queerplatonic relationships (QPR) and queerplatonic partnerships (QPP) are committed intimate relationships which are not romantic in nature. They may differ from usual close friendships by having more explicit commitment, validation, status, structure, and norms, similar to a conventional romantic relationship."

I have some older journal entries that talk about romantic relationships. Need I delete those?

(2024-04-17 18:41)Shipaxe Wrote:  How does this apply to queerplatonic relationships? Since they present somewhat romantically despite not being romantic. Just curious.

I'm not sure what you mean.

Do you have an example?

LP,
Dusty

This rule honestly brings me a lot of relief. I’ve been tired of a lot of the romantic stuff going on in shout so much.

How does this apply to queerplatonic relationships? Since they present somewhat romantically despite not being romantic. Just curious.

(2024-04-17 6:52)DustWolf Wrote:  

(2024-04-17 2:34)frost_TheCat Wrote:  but also I am no different than the people because I am too dating someone else on this website (Not openly at all but I do mention it in my journals).Which brings me to one question. if you are under 16 and you're writing in your Journal can you just say that you got a partner and that's it nothing more nothing less?( kind of like this: ….and guess what I got a Partner :3!!)

I don't really see this as discussing as something romantic but I don't want to break this Rule n such.

This is basically the same thing that people were already asking about having their partner mentioned in their signature.

While I think it makes sense that you would indicate whether you're open or in a relationship... I also don't want this to become a loophole for pups continuing to bring up romantic relationships on TG. So, I'd say it is also not allowed.

You can view it as romantic relationships simply being off topic on TG until you are 16. Nobody is going to look to date you on TG anyways, so there is no point even bringing it up.

LP,
Dusty

though so thanks for the clarification :3

(2024-04-17 4:49)Tdae Wrote:  

(2024-04-16 13:49)StormyPica Wrote:  Not trying to start an argument, just PLEASE don't make this about sex, especially since this rule is specifically or pups. It's weird and kind of creepy that sex was the first thing that popped to mind when you read this.

I'm sorry. With my “theriotype” being a dead wolf I guess I should not be surprised somebody thinks I'm being weird/creepy. But some of the things mentioned in the topic were explicit or could be perceived that way. Young people frequently use terms that have explicit meanings. Romantic attachment and sexuality are generally associated together, to adults.

I mentioned why I have strong feelings about the topic, because of the misery when these animal instincts go awry. Romantic relationships have a level of emotional intensity that can lead to destructive things if people are not mature at handling their feelings. Platonic love generally has less intensity but can still be very deep.

So... besides the “creepy” aspect, there can be emotions some people are not ready to handle with romantic relationships.

I also very much agree with the necessity of emotional maturity. After all, the lack of emotional maturity is a large part of what caused this issue in the first place I suspect.

I do think romantic relationships have a slightly different meaning for younger people. As in: there’s an “unofficial adult definition” and an “unofficial child definition”, and issues may arise when we conflate the two. But that is just my opinion of course.

(2024-04-17 4:49)Tdae Wrote:  

(2024-04-16 13:49)StormyPica Wrote:  Not trying to start an argument, just PLEASE don't make this about sex, especially since this rule is specifically or pups. It's weird and kind of creepy that sex was the first thing that popped to mind when you read this.

I'm sorry. With my “theriotype” being a dead wolf I guess I should not be surprised somebody thinks I'm being weird/creepy. But some of the things mentioned in the topic were explicit or could be perceived that way. Young people frequently use terms that have explicit meanings. Romantic attachment and sexuality are generally associated together, to adults.

I mentioned why I have strong feelings about the topic, because of the misery when these animal instincts go awry. Romantic relationships have a level of emotional intensity that can lead to destructive things if people are not mature at handling their feelings. Platonic love generally has less intensity but can still be very deep.

So... besides the “creepy” aspect, there can be emotions some people are not ready to handle with romantic relationships.

That makes sense, and I do definitely understand that romantic and sexual attraction often go together, however this is a rule for pups, most of whom can’t maintain a romantic relationship for more than a week or a month. So it just seems really odd to bring sex into the picture. Odd is definitely a better term than “weird and creepy” so I apologize for that, as I had kind of a knee-jerk reaction to seeing your post.